I think Toppers is really on to something. I think we should get rid of Dack, Smallwood, Mulgrew, Lenihan and Nyambe and get some loanees instead.

You seem to be willfully ignoring some significant factors, but if you really want to dumb it down, then why not? Isn't the aim to have as strong a side as possible? Just because you're happy with a certain player, it doesn't mean you stop looking for ways to improve your team. A Charlie Mulgrew without the injury problems would be better than Charlie Mulgrew, for instance. We didn't need to bring in Adam Armstrong, but it's looking like a smart piece of business, strengthening our promotion push. But just because he's doing well now, it doesn't mean we should do all we can to sign him in the summer, as we're hoping we'll go up and therefore will need another of level of quality to compete.

You seem to be overlooking the obvious sarcasm in my post as well as willfully ignoring the only actual point I ever refer too.

And which point is that? I took it as sarcasm when you said I had a point and that we should get rid of some of our players, since that seemed grossly disingenuous. I responded accordingly. You didn't say anything else...

Haven't read the rest of the thread. But the point still stands: that's never been my argument.

I'd also refute that his loan spell was definitely a success.

In the broad sense of our transfer dealings I have no issue with either loans or signing players to a contract. Either situation is dependent on a variety of factors and both come with differing pros and cons.

Signing Graham after his loan spell was a good idea, likewise loaning Gallagher that summer from Southampton was a good idea. Signing Dack and Smallwood was brilliant business and getting Armstrong in on loan this January has also proven an excellent idea. There are many example of when things do and don't work out.

You specifically thought the signing of Graham was poor business at the time and that just simply hasn't been the case.

You specifically thought the signing of Graham was poor business at the time and that just simply hasn't been the case.

Yeah just imagine, we could have been relegated last season if we hadn't have signed him... no, wait...

It takes some serious suspension of disbelief to say all has worked out well. Graham may not be directly the reason we went down, but as our most high profile and presumably one of the higher earning signings, he didn't make up for the deficiencies elsewhere in the team to keep us up. So should we have diverted the chunk of the wage bill paid to him to fund other signings in an attempt to avoid the drop? Absoultely, when the worst that could happen is what happened anyway.

Or we would have gone down without his goals and we could then ask should we have diverted the chunk of the wage bill paid to fund other signings to him to in an attempt to avoid the drop? Absoultely, when the worst that could happen is what happened anyway. Pointless whatiffing boys.

Or we would have gone down without his goals and we could then ask should we have diverted the chunk of the wage bill paid to fund other signings to him to in an attempt to avoid the drop? Absoultely, when the worst that could happen is what happened anyway. Pointless whatiffing boys.

Well, no, because we know that we were relegated after signing Graham, that's a certainty, it actually happened. That's not true if you try to reverse the argument.

Correct - it's a total uncertainty. You are therefore arguing we should have magically seen into the future in order to do something for which we still don't know the outcome. I have rarely seen such a pointless waste of finger movement.

*** and deleting it afterwards compounds that waste - think of the children!

Or we would have gone down without his goals and we could then ask should we have diverted the chunk of the wage bill paid to fund other signings to him to in an attempt to avoid the drop? Absoultely, when the worst that could happen is what happened anyway. Pointless whatiffing boys.

Well no, because in one case we know the outcome is a certainty, in the other it's just an assumption to suit your argument.

As yours is an assumption to suit your argument - that was exactly the point of my post - to highlight what a FUCKING WASTE OF TIME IT IS. Oh look, my fingers fell off in protest at the stupidity of it all.